Thanks for the input, folks.
So, it looks as though there's a preference for keeping it off-list, at least until a moderation decision is made, and possibly thereafter too. I shall proceed in that way.
For the record, following Dariusz's remark, I will point out that that is *not* how we do it on-wiki; on-wiki, all negotiations of users' behavior is done publicly and on the record (albeit with usernames rather than the real names most of us use here).
Cheers,
A.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
As a reader I would also appreciate it to happen in private. I trust the admins to make a sane decision, and if things go berzerk and they make a string of bad decisions, I trust it'll come up on the list then.
Lodewijk
2016-07-26 16:28 GMT+02:00 Richard Symonds < richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk
:
Generally, it is better to discuss it privately with the list admins.
This
prevents the worst side of mailing lists: a one-sided dogpile on an individual, who, disruptive or not, should get a fair hearing by the person(s) whose job it is to moderate.
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A
4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 26 July 2016 at 15:14, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Brill Lyle wp.brilllyle@gmail.com wrote:
I was on a very active music mailing list for over 10 years and I was grateful it was not moderated. Moderation can inhibit discussion,
even
when
there are disruptors, and it also requires moderators donate a lot of volunteer hours. Which I think within the Wikimedia family community
is
already being required of many of us. So I would vote against
moderation.
If an argument / shift was towards moderation, maybe it could be
based
on
edit count and/or contributions? But that seems a bit extreme and
awful.
- Erika
*Erika Herzog* Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle <
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle
We need moderators to manage spam if for no other reason, and it has
been
helpful in many cases in the 8-9 years I have been subscribed to this
list
to inhibit disruption and encourage civil exchange. We also have a
"soft
limit" of 30 posts per month that has rarely needed to be enforced but
is
still technically on the books. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe